he could also hold T8 (suited) or AJ(o), right which may push this into a fold, or maybe not ... you tell me. Regardless ... I picked this particular spot because it's a very common TPTK scenario ... one that seems to come up so much more often than the times both players have big hands. It's the type of hand I refer to as a "skill" hand referring to the fact that it's exactly these situations that separate the weak from the strong cash players. If it's a mathematical call, fine .. but it's hard to convince me that it's a no brainer call ... it must be pretty close based on the T8 and AJ hands he could also hold which shut my hand down pretty well.

So maybe that's why I'm an online donk .. I just fold here .. mainly because I feel unlucky online .. mainly because there are so many times I'm right and he is betting one bad pair here, and then he hits a backdoor flush on the river, or two pair, or some gut straight .. and then I hate myself even more.

But in a cash game, I am totally confident that even though it feels like a pretty close situation .. where a fold can't be that wrong and neither can a call be considered "hopeless" ... what I have to go on is soooo much better than online ... I have personal observation.

As soon as I saw the flop, I begin to get a sense of whether villain is drawing, or trapping. That ONE data point is so huge, it's so important, so absolutely key in future decisions, that I must believe such makes the math if not irrelevant, than certainly not nearly as significant. Because a guy who is drawing calls very differently than a guy who is trapping and they both call very differently than a guy who is calling to bluff a draw if it hits. Mainly this is revealed in the manner in which the player THINKS facing a bet. The trick is to pause long enough to get a general sense, BEFORE betting the flop .. thus getting a full on reaction of the villain facing a bet. Because the villain is sitting there not knowing wtf he will do because it's not his turn ... and such is where OOP is not as bad live, as it is online, where position occurs to me as far more relevant.

In live play, when I'm OOP, I have total control of the "tempo" ... the villain cannot act before I do ... thus he is forced to RE-ACT .. in other words .. his action can only be initiated once he knows what I'm going to do. And my pausing gives me time to focus and observe .. is he waiting to 'pounce' .. is he thinking about trapping .. is he considering tossing .. whatever .. he is sitting there waiting, that's all he can do. So now I fiddle and I bet pot .. NOW is when the spotlight goes onto the villain bigtime .. because the MOMENT he sees me betting, is the first time he truly can decide what to do.

And if he's not a very strong player .. he probably had no CLUE what he was going to do until it was his turn. And that's how he gives away big clues to his holdings. Because as stated, a drawing villain just LOOKS different than a trapping villain .. and I know if that there is no more vital data than which it is ... so that's what I'm looking for.

And that's why I win playing cash NL .. because I make that decision better than many of the players .. and I make that decision regardless of the math .. which as we both agree .. is pretty close. A fold or a call cannot be pooh-poohed off as being "wrong" here. Both have merit.

And my whole point here ... is that when you come play live .. you don't bring your stats with you ... thus not only do you not know what this particular villain is capable of .. you don't have practice looking for and applying the critical 'draw detector' that helps lead you to making the right decisions in these "skill spots" .. that come up much more frequently than the big hand vs big hand spots which so often are no brainers. And since you have so many fewer hands to play in a live game than you do online, relying on the math to bail you out in the long run is not as meaningful .... because the long run in a live environment is nothing compared to onliine. In a cash game, it's all about being RIGHT much more often than being wrong. And the only way I know to be RIGHT a lot of the time is to play "in the moment" and use the math only as a guide, not as a decision maker.

he can't read me like a book given we've never played together and I previously got him to instafold when I held napkins. And I didn't say his blunders were that enormous, only that they were amateurish. Which they were .. I mean seriously .. the guy hasn't played but a handful of sessions, okay?

Agree pretty much across the board. The online sharks who can no longer win will naturally stumble in to live games. That said, I still stand by my initial point ... the skills you personally bring to the table, I'm talking your decision making system, needs to be radically adjusted to take into account all the additional information available, to take into account the lack of statistical information available. Without nine other games to offset a bad decision here or there, you must make far more ACCURATE decisions in live play, since you won't have the goods nearly so often, you won't find nearly as many profitable spots, etc. What you will find yourself in are many MANY more marginal spots - or 'skill spots' .. where accuracy with sub nut hands will ultimately determine your end result (at the end of the month, not that session).

Ummm does your soul read allow you to see whether villain is drawing at clubs or a straight? My hand range that showed us as slight favorites took into account A8o+ meaning A8o,A9o,ATo etc.

I didn't put T8o in there but that hand added to his range would make it a fold for me also.

LOL, well no ... my crystal ball soul read is handy detected "draw vs trap" ... but if I want to get into the particulars of the draw itself, such is a job for my tarot cards.

Srsly though ... no ... of course it's not really possible to tell WHICH draw, only that the guy knows that he is on a draw, vs the situation where he is on a set. I'm assuming most players in his spot lucky enough to flop two pair pretty much are required to raise here, given the vulnerability of such a holding.

Now when the turn brings the J of clubs, and I had put him on a draw ... I pretty much have to shift into another mode .. now it's all about "bluff" vs "made hand". So your question is sort of moot since I put the Jc out there, which makes both draws. So unless I pick something STRONG up on the turn that indicates a bluff .. I pretty much have to muck here .. either he was trapping .. or I'm now drawing dead.

If instead, the turn is the 3c ... now it comes down to pure judgment .. and my inclination may be to call if there is a reasonable chance he's trying to rep a flush ... as we said .. this is a tricky player capable of such. My decision depends 100 percent on how he bets now ... and basic Mike Caro applies a LOT of the time .. "extra emphasis", "confidence", etc give me more reason to call ... "faux thinking" give me more reason to muck. It's astonishing how reliably players react to these situations .. the "faux concern" look is pretty hard to miss, once you get somebody's performance into your memory. But many better players are okay at shielding in a spot like that .. where they fall down is what they do BEFORE the draw card hits ... since most player's aren't as concerned about their tells in those spots. Once the draw card hits ... they need to be in a situation where they are really nervous about the money in order for a reliable tell to be transmitted .. such has been my experience anyway. The time I look for the draw vs trap tell is on the flop ... not the turn. On the turn .. it comes down to "made hand vs pure bluff" and again, such is a different situation entirely and totally depends on the particular player. The reason I adore playing live is every human being has a totally different way of 'shielding' .... thus it's like each situation is like this human "mystery box" where you slowly uncover somebody's subconscious behaviors.

I could go on for pages, the point is, it really does occur to me as folly that an online specialist can waltz into such an environment, with player's like myself paying attention to the stuff discussed here, and think they can make better decisions than I can ... it's like me saying I can show up and play a big online NL game with no statistical data on the players ... no information on their particular ranges, blind defending behavior, etc ... and hope to be PE. That would be a joke, right?

Yeah, we've read caro's books also. Most the pro's that post on here won't hesitate to jump into a big game of unknowns online. If they are unknown they are probably a fish.

I'd put my roll on the line against you beating any of the top players on this site live HU.

well, I'd certainly give any of them the button for 25% ... in other words ... they put up X .. i put up .75x ... we start with equal chips and they always have the button, every single hand. We play 3 out of 5 matches for the money. I'm in.
Other than that, I'm probably not interested since HU is so streaky I wouldn't do it for a lot of money.

But I'm much more of a 6-9 handed player ... and last I checked .. plenty of seats available at LC on Wed and Fri when you, or anybody can come give it a whirl. Again, I'm not really here to see whose is bigger, I'm here to have a conversation .. i take it from your 'challenge' that you are not swayed in the least by the points I bring up .. that's okay .. reasonably guys disagree sometimes.

rob,

So if someone gives you either 1.25:1 or 1.33:1 (depending on how one reads your proposition), you'll give them the button every hand and play them a best 3/5 live NLHE HU freezeout. How many blinds per game are you thinking? What sort of stakes are you interested in doing this for?

4:3. For every seven betting units in the middle, I put up 3, my opponent kicks in 4. We play the same structure that the WSOP uses for their HU tournaments. My opponent is on the button every hand.

Obviously I won't make this bet with "anybody". I won't make it with Phil Ivey. I won't make it with Johnny Chan. Nor will I make it with any player who has a reasonable amount of success playing live. But I'd do this with anybody who hasn't played live NLHE before, because position is worth more online, than live, for all the reasons stated earlier. Thus online experts overvalue position in live games, since such gives them internal "comfort" when playing a hand. Live players value the button as well, obviously, but not as much as online players. I've debated the right "price" for the button a lot in such situations, it's not easy to figure out the right number ... but I'm more than comfortable being OOP if I can bet 3 to win 7 units for the overall match ... ESPECIALLY if my opponent has no experience shielding or reading live.

Regarding stakes, it doesn't matter ... it the number is too big for me, I'd make two calls and get backing for whatever amount. Seriously though, it's silly to have this discussion ... you don't know me ... why would anybody sign up for such a thing against an unknown entity? Nor do I know who I'd be playing against. So it's fair enough to say it's not going to happen ... and this is just a theoretical discussion.

Why is it that online players are always so ready to challenge somebody who says or does something they don't agree with? It's weird. I mean, how's this ... let's just play Russian Roulette to see who is truly tougher? One six-shooter, three bullets, we play Roh-Sham-Bo to see who fires first .. winner cleans up.

I'm not interested in sitting down with somebody I don't know to play a large match for any significant stakes. And neither should you be. It's silliness.

rob, are you by any chance schizophrenic or bipolar or have multiple-personality disorder or anything? (forgive me if i used completely incorrect clinical terminology there.)

the reason i ask is that you often say one thing, then even within the same paragraph contradict it. for example, first you brought up a proposal, and defined the terms of the bet thusly: "I'd certainly give any of them the button for 25% ... in other words ... they put up X .. i put up .75x ... we start with equal chips and they always have the button, every single hand. We play 3 out of 5 matches for the money. I'm in."

you also said: "I'd do this with anybody who hasn't played live NLHE before" and continued with: "Regarding stakes, it doesn't matter ... it the number is too big for me, I'd make two calls and get backing for whatever amount."

but then, your very next sentence (???): "Seriously though, it's silly to have this discussion ... you don't know me ... why would anybody sign up for such a thing against an unknown entity? Nor do I know who I'd be playing against. So it's fair enough to say it's not going to happen ... and this is just a theoretical discussion."

why is it silly? may i remind you that you brought it up in the first place? this is a poker forum, we look for edges and make bets and try to win money: if i feel the terms of your bet are favorable then i'll find someone with zero live experience and book the bet with you. there's nothing silly or macho about it. your russian roulette analogy is absurd: i don't want to die, and i don't want you to die; i would like to win your money, however. do you find that objectionable?


edit to add: "I'm not interested in sitting down with somebody I don't know to play a large match for any significant stakes. And neither should you be. It's silliness."

really, it's not silly at all. you seemed confident you'd have an edge in your scenario, so it's a money-making opportunity. what's silly about that?

lol, Johnny Chan

Hey, I know you right? Clue me in, okay?

sigh, sereiously, I'll put a spelling error in this so you could point this out next post, okay?

What I meant to say was this : I'll take the bet, given I "like" the opponent .. ie ... it's somebody who I can profile and feel confident that I am not getting hustled here. If you have not played live NLHE, you qualify, okay? Now, given such a theoretical construct, I don't think I am going to be convinced that somebody who has never played live NLHE wishes to sit down with me, ANOTHER UNKNOWN ENTITY, and put serious money up to play for the first time. Maybe I'm wrong .. but I just don't think a match like this would happen .. even though I'd gladly take the bet, if such a person came forward.

1) They will not come forward, for all the reasons described

2) If they did come forward, I wouldn't believe them anyway, for all the reasons described.

Thus, trying to "set up" such a match so I can "put my mouth where my money is" (another grammatical mistake that you can jump all over!) is obviously not going to happen .. so continuing to huff and puff is just schoolyard silliness.

I'm not here to set up HU matches .. I"m here to have a conversation. Come play at LC, sit to my left, annoy me enough and at the end of the session, I'll probably be happy to play HU, okay? But not here, not sight unseen ... theoretically, sure ... but you have no way of demonstrating that your "horse" is the right type of opponent .. so why bother? It's obviously not going to happen

"I'd gladly take the bet, if such a person came forward ... If they did come forward, I wouldn't believe them anyway"

i can easily produce such a person, with incontrovertible proof that he meets your criterion of never having played bigger live nl games. but no matter, i can't force you to book a bet.

"continuing to huff and puff is just schoolyard silliness."

yet again, why do you think this is about ego or machismo? i'm entirely dispassionate about this; it's not about ego, it's about money. you're just projecting here: once more, YOU came up with this proposal of "heads-up with a live noob, get 4:3 but give the button every hand, 3 out of 5 matches," didn't you? but when you had to quickly back away from it, your ego was bruised. so to cover for retracting a bet that YOU suggested, you accuse me (or diablo, or others) of being internet tough guys or whatever. i can't speak for anyone else, but i'm the farthest thing possible from a tough guy. i just want your money.

lol.